Well, that's the rub, I guess. It is complex and not everyone has or is willing to
really ponder it. I mean, I fully understand and appreciate the arguments against my position, I just disagree with them. And its not like the arguments against my position are terribly lacking in logic, science, etc. It really comes down to differences in values. Maybe only
slight differences.
At any rate, I think it is fair to say that both sides make coherent and at least somewhat compelling arguments. And, for the sake of argument, let's say that we just don't know. We may "know" later, but right now - at this point in time, it is "Side A" vs "Side B". Side A says an embryo is a life and Side B says an embryo is a mere collection of cells. When it comes to making policy decisions, at the lab level and/or government level, what is the more prudent course of action: treat them as human life until we "know" otherwise or treat them as mere cells until we "know" otherwise? We choose one, we may be killing something we later "know" as life; we choose the other, and we have been merely treating something as like we later "know" as mere cells. One choice offers potentially ending a life (ie death), and the other choice offers, what I think most people would consider, something much less. It seems to me that prudence clearly dictates choosing Side A, at least for now.
And just to nip in the bud an argument I know would be coming if I stopped here. The fact that cells from the embryos
could be used to treat diseases, etc. is irrelevant wrt the prudent choice. At the core of modern medicine, and medical research for that matter, is the prohibition against harming one to treat another. Therefore, treating them as cells until we "know" otherwise may ultimately lead to later "knowing" that we have intentionally killed many to treat many others. Choosing Side A does not offer the same risk of going against everything medicine (and science for that matter - the modern dogma is rubbish) stands for.